Jump In, The Water's Fine!

Signing Off...For A Few Days.

2005-07-29T10:03:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm moving next week Tuesday. Off to law school! But as a consequence of that I had to cancel my high speed internet service, which is effective today, Friday! So, this will be my last post for a while - at least until I get internet access at my new place. Everyone have a good weekend and I'll be back soon!

Chicago GOP Takes On Roles of Police Department and District Attorney's Office! They Must Be Tired.

2005-07-27T12:31:00.000-04:00

Apparently the Cook County GOP is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an indictment and conviction of Chicago's Mayor, Richard M. Daley. It seems that in addition to legislating, the GOP of Cook County felt the need to pick up the slack for the police department and the district attorney's office. Good thing too or we might have a corrupt politician running loose! Maybe the GOP will start to offer its services for other investigations. That would be good news for the police and district attorneys, as they desperately need the rest. Vacation time, yippee!

Iran Hangs Gay Youths.

2005-07-22T14:46:00.000-04:00

I read about this story a few days ago. As Ann Althouse said, "Unbearable. Unbelievable. The senseless execution of children."

But I wanted to not comment so much about the story but more about some people's reaction to it. Especially GayPatriot's posting on the story. I understand that GayPatriot is conservative and a strong backer of Bush's foreign policy. But what I don't understand is why he makes the hanging of two gay youths in Iran (and threats of gay club bombings) an issue about the stances of the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force? I am actually quite appalled, in fact, that he seems to attribute (at least in part) the hanging of these children to the HRC's and NGLTF's lack of support for the war on terror! Frankly, this makes him no better than the lefty loons who blame the WTC attacks on the victims in the towers.

The killing of gay people, stoning of women, honor killings and the like are not (nor have they ever been) a result of groups who oppose war or conflict! They are a result of governments and dictatorships with inhumane policies that violate the very sanctity of life. Would democracy in these nations help to reduce such vile acts? Maybe. Is the war on terror helping to make nations democracies? I don't know. One thing is certain however, blaming groups like the HRC and NGLTF for atrocities of others is unfair and reckless. What does it accomplish?

UPDATE: I see GayPatriot has a new post regarding a letter sent from the HRC discussing its stance on the war on terror. Good to see.

Iraq and Its Constitution.

2005-07-20T20:23:00.000-04:00

There's a lot of buzz about the new draft of the Iraqi constitution. One key aspect that seems to be bothering quite a few people is that women will have limited rights, as long as they do not violate shariah law. Now, I fully appreciate people's unhappiness with this development in Iraq's constitutional process, but people cannot be upset that the democratically elected government of Iraq is drafting its constitution as it sees fit! After all, this is what so many supporters of the war wanted -- a democratic Iraq. Now that the elected government isn't doing what the supports want, they are upset. These people are hypocrites. You can't justify your argument to go to war on bringing democracy to a country as long as that country proceeds with democracy as you see it. This would undermine their whole rational for going to war in the first place!

I want to be clear though, I am for democracy and equal rights for all citizens of a country. But these two things are not causes or effects of the other. And what I think people fail to realize (especially in the U.S.) is that democracy in the U.S. is not the only way in which it can be implemented. Just because a country is pushed into democracy (like Iraq) does not mean things will go as thought. This is exactly why the U.S. always seems to bite off more than it can chew -- assuming too much about an outcome based solely on how we would handle it. Frankly, it was foolish of the U.S. to think that we could just sweep into Iraq, give them democracy, and all would be daisies and sunshine.

As I see it, the U.S. (short from forming a puppet government) cannot dictate to the newly elected Iraqi government how to draft its constitution and we are going to have to live with what we helped create.

It's Been A While!

2005-07-20T07:12:00.000-04:00

So, I'm a slacker. As you can see from my previous post, I haven't posted in quite a while. Why the break from posting? Many reasons. The biggest of which is utter laziness. I apologize for this, but it's the summer and I've just been enjoying what summer I have left before I head off to law school in August. Yup, I'm gonna be a lawyer! I figured after 2 years of real-world working I'm ready for school again, so why not law school?

Anyway, I will try to keep up on my postings from now on. Of course, there will be a break in a couple weeks when I move and get my things situated, but after that I should have plenty of material from my experiences as a law student and what not.

Truly The Ugliest Dog Ever!

2005-07-08T11:40:00.000-04:00

On a day when a good laugh is what is needed, this did the trick! Thanks KipEsquire. Whoa!

Be sure to check out the full story of Sam the dog.

O'Connor Retiring.

2005-07-01T11:21:00.000-04:00

And so it begins!

See here for details.

Tom Cruise...Again.

2005-06-29T14:54:00.000-04:00

Ok, so this is my second post in a few days on Tom Cruise. I do apologize that he seems to be the only thing I'm blogging about, but I am kinda busy at work and his antics make for fast, amusing blogging.

Tom Cruise, master of psychiatry and pharmacology, has now decided to enlighten the world to the fact that aliens do exist. But it's not so much the fact that Tommy boy believes in aliens that I find interesting. No, it's more the fact that Tom Cruise is really an A1, genuine asshole. The guy doesn't really know the meaning of the word humility. Take for example, this response to the question about whether he thinks aliens exist or not.

Yes, of course. Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe?

Could he possibly be more arrogant in his condescending response to the question? I mean, we all aren't as enlightened as Tom Cruise about the ways of the world. If this is how they convince you to convert to Scientology, I say get me as far away as possible. Sheesh, you think you know your celebs!

Tom Cruise Has Lost His Marbles.

2005-06-24T13:35:00.000-04:00

Apparently Tom Cruise is an expert on psychiatric medications. Just read what he had to say on the Today Show:

You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt [Lauer], OK. That's what I've done.

Wow, why hasn't some pharmaceutical company snatched him up? Oh, that's right, 'cause he's lost his mind! I'm sorry but Tom Cruise annoyed me before his whole engagement fiasco, now I just wish he'd get lost in L. Ron Hubbard's butt where he belongs. His blathering and flailing about on national television makes me want to puke. And have you actually listened to what he's saying? Aside from the fact that he's quite rude, he sounds freaking loony toons! I guess we just have to put his name right next to Mel Gibson and Michael Jackson on the list of celebrities that have gone bananas.

Rove's Comments.

2005-06-24T08:05:00.000-04:00

Here is an article about the comments Karl Rove recently made about how liberals and conservatives saw the 9/11 attacks and their respective responses. Here is the quote that has gotten everyone riled up:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Democrats are calling for an apology because of what they see as Rove's likening them to supporting terrorism. While I don't think that is exactly what Rove was doing, I still think he should apologize for the comment. It was rude and it was clearly meant to take aim at Democrats by portraying them as "soft" on fighting terrorism and sympathizing with the terrorists.

But I think a more important aspect of this whole thing is the timing of the comment.

In about a year there will be mid-term congressional elections. Although Republicans are in the majority now, they are vulnerable and Rove knows this. With this comment, just like his strategy for Bush's reelection, Rove has begun the "spin" against Democrats -- portraying them as soft on terror and not willing to do what is necessary to fight for America. And if there is one thing Democrats should have learned from fighting Bush in previous elections, it is that Rove is a brilliant political strategist and will fight dirty to win. This is exactly why I think Democrats should approach Rove's comments with caution. He doesn't let things slip and he certainly does not speak off the cuff. He knew exactly what he was saying and knew exactly how it would be taken. This is why if Democrats aren't careful, I feel they may fall right into Rove's trap.

UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only one thinking it's a trap.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I just saw a comercial on MSNBC sponspored by the group UpOrDownVote.org. Here are some quips:

"Liberals will attack any supreme court nominee." "Democrats will attack anyone the president nominates."

Is this comercial and Rove's comments coincidental? I'm not so sure. But what kind of effect will this have? Are Americans getting tired of all this partisian grandstanding? At the very least I think these kind of ads (including Rove's statements) are starting to wear on the public.

WMD Attack?

2005-06-22T10:50:00.000-04:00

Truly frightening!

Going Away....Just For The Weekend!

2005-06-16T07:59:00.000-04:00

I am departing today, after work, for the beach. I expect to get some sun (ahhh, skin cancer) and play in the ocean. So do not fret my loyal reader (yes, it's singular on purpose), I will be back on Sunday to endulge you with my thrilling posting. Until then, play safe!

What Causes Cancer?

2005-06-16T06:48:00.000-04:00

Here is an article about how a new study reports that increased sun exposure may help to fight off prostate cancer because it increases the vitamin D levels in the body. However, the researchers suggest that vitamin D supplements be taken instead as a "safer" alternative.

But because tanning and burning actually raise skin cancer risks, researchers suggest vitamin D in supplement form may be a safer option.

This reminded me of something I've been thinking about. What if the rise in cancer rates in the last century (hell, even the last 50 years) is not so much related to carcinogens like the sun, but to our piss poor diet and ultimately our lifestyles?

Think about it, humans have been around for thousands of years (a substantial amount of which has been recorded history). Our bodies have evolved to interact with our environment in certain ways to allow us to survive, e.g. the sunlight allows our bodies to make vitamin D. Of course all of this is dependent on whether or not we get the right nutrients through diet. And let's face it; most people in developed countries don't have balanced diets. That's right, contrary to some people's belief, you can't live off cheeseburgers.

I also find it very coincidental that cancer rates (and other health problems) started to dramatically increase around the same time our diets went down the toilet. So what's all this mean? I don't know. It could mean nothing and my theory could be explained away with rational reasons like longer life spans, thus exposure to more diseases. Or I could be on to something. But whatever the reason, maybe the best plan would be to take the route nature laid out for us and supplement it with modern medicine. That way, just maybe, we could live forever! But that's another post entirely.

Jackson Jury Reaches Verdict.

2005-06-13T15:39:00.000-04:00

I'm oddly excited about this. I'm not sure he will be found guilty of child molestation, but I think child intoxication he will be found guilty of. Hmm, anxiously awaiting.

Is A Shiite/Sunni Government Possible?

2005-06-12T20:49:00.000-04:00

The NYT has an article today about a significant problem in Iraq; one that I think hasn’t received the attention it deserves. The Shiite dominated government has not been including (or very minimally including) the country’s Sunni population in any of its decision making processes. If the goal in Iraq is truly to create a democracy based on freedom, than this goal of including the Sunni minority is imperative! However, I am not optimistic about the chances of this happening. The main reason is that both the Shiites and Sunnis have been at war (figuratively and literally) with each other since their sectarian inceptions 1500 some odd years ago.

For those not familiar with Sunnis and Shiites, the core difference between them became permanent when the religious leader of Islam, Uthman, was assassinated in 656 A.D. There were varying opinions among Muslims as to who should be the rightful successor to Uthman. The Sunnis believing that the successor was to be Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Shiites, on the other hand, believed that the Prophet Muhammad’s successor was to be Muawiyah, a governor of Syria and a member of the same clan as Uthman. (A quick side note, Uthman was the third successor to the prophet Muhammad. The first and second successors being Abu Bakr and Umar respectively.) The most prominent and problematic effect of the split was that Sunnis and Shiites considered the believers of the other sect to be infidels and not true Muslims. These feelings toward one another and the strong conviction on both sides of the rightful leader of Islam have not waned with time. This is important because it defines the current situation in Iraq.

The Sunnis/Shiite split obviously caused many deep rifts within the Muslim community. To see this one only need look at how Saddam, who is Sunni, ran his country until he was deposed (many of his human rights abuses were directed at the Iraqi Shiites). And while Americans enjoy relative religious freedom, it is clear that the Shiites currently in control are not striving to create a more secular, religious tolerant nation.

So, while it is a laudable goal to have other nations put more pressure on the government of Iraq to include the Sunnis minority, I don’t see this as being a very effective means by which to achieve this goal. Not only because of the huge barrier in getting Sunnis and Shiites to work together but also for one simple fact: If Shiites and Sunnis can agree on one thing, it’s not having outside, non-Muslim nations exerting any kind of influence in their affairs. Unfortunately, history is not on the side of democracy for Iraq. I hope history’s prediction and my pessimism are proven wrong.

Compassionate Conservatives?

2005-06-08T09:56:00.000-04:00

Texas governer Rick Perry:

Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that's a better place for them (gay and lesbian families) to live.

(Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

UPDATE: Apparently Governor Perry was more specifically referring to gay and lesbian veterans who live in Texas. "Oh, thanks for risking your life on the front lines for us. But we'd rather you live somewhere else." What an SOB!

The Gays Got It Bad.

2005-06-08T08:26:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan asks a very good question prompted by some of the Pope's recent remarks.

The headlines were all about gay marriage, but the Pope condemned in equal fashion the choices of the vast majority of Americans, from masturbation to IVF. The issue is not homosexuality as such for the Pope. It is any expression of sexuality that isn't always marital and procreative. But somehow, only the gays get the brunt. Why?

I think this sums up the problem quite nicely. It has actually never been about what gay people do sexually. Because if it were, then straight people would be just as guilty, in fact I think guiltier, than gay people! No, it’s always been about scapegoating gay people because we are not the norm. We are easy targets and it makes people feel better to bash us in order to legitimize their own behavior. It sounds ridiculous and it is. I hope this recent uprising of anti-gay propaganda is merely a sign of a last stand and things will soon improve.

WiFi In The Sky!

2005-06-07T15:56:00.000-04:00

Instapundit posts, from an NYT article, about how United's fleet of domestic bound airplanes will have Wi-Fi access within the next year. Maybe instead of offering WiFi at 33,000 ft, we could put that money towards say, lower fares? Or how about better snacks and maybe offering us lowly coach passengers the whole can of soda instead of a measly dixie cup?! Dare to dream.

"Primer"

2005-06-04T22:36:00.000-04:00

I just watched the movie "Primer" by first time film director/writer Shane Carruth. The movie is a short about 2 amateur inventors that create a sort of time machine. They begin by using it to play the stock market and win some extra cash. Eventually things start to get weird and they use the machine to do (or undo) other past events.

This movie is strange. Let me first say that it is not for most people. It has a dry kind of engineer-technical speak about it and the plot twists (if you can call them that) are very very confusing. The first half of the movie is decent. It has a good storyline and nice character interaction. However, after they start to use the “machine,” things get infinitely stranger and very ambiguous. There are, what seem to be, glaring holes in the storyline but these were deliberate, intended to make the viewer draw his own conclusions. However, I think most viewers are going to say, “What the?” And not give it another thought.

Overall the movie is decent. There are several style aspects -- like the actors constantly talking over one another -- that the movie could do without. But as a whole it is entertaining. It falls in the same genre as "Memento", but is no where near as captivating and is a whole lot more enigmatic. If that’s your cup of tea, I recommend it. If not, skip it.

Quran Abuses Actually True -- White House Caught With Foot In Mouth!

2005-06-04T18:08:00.000-04:00

So we find out that the Quran has indeed been mishandled by interrogators and guards at Gitmo. Maybe it wasn't flushed down the toilet, but it was mishandled. And to defile the Quran in any way shape or form is a serious offense to Muslims (to put it mildly). To relate, just substitute "Quran" with your holy book of choice and think how you would feel? But I've already posted on this subject of desecrating the Quran. What I find interesting now, is how the White House is going to recover from this. Just to refresh, when Newsweek printed and retracted a story about the Quran being flushed down the toilet the White House immediately jumped on Newsweek as have seriously damaged the U.S. image abroad. Now that we find the allegations to be true (maybe not the toilet flushing, but others yes) the White House blows it off as, "this is unfortunate and is wrong." Not quite the same type of reaction as Newsweek got. I suppose it is typical of any administration/politician to do this but I thought Bush had principles? I thought we knew where he stood and he had "cojones," a backbone? Wouldn't this then mean owning up to your faults or mistakes that have been made and working to fix them? I guess not. The way I see it, this administration (along with the past 4 or 5) is the cause of the U.S.'s image's decline abroad -- not one story by one news publication. So, let's stop the scapegoating and if we truly are concerned about our image internationally, then let's get working on it in a more open, positive way.

The Founding Fathers - Another Opinion.

2005-06-03T08:02:00.000-04:00

Paul Light has a nice editorial in the NYT today making a good argument about the use of the "founding fathers" argument with regard to the filibuster. At the very least, it goes to show that the founding fathers were a complex group with varying opinions on issues and the direction that this country should take. And anyone can use quotes from the founding fathers and inferences about what they would approve of and what they would not to justify their argument. Interesting indeed.

Gay Fruit Flies.

2005-06-03T07:54:00.000-04:00

The NYT reports on an interesting bit of research that found a "master gene" in fruit flies that controls their sexual orientation. As the article points out, this is amazing. Not only from the fruit fly perspective but also for gay humans. I don't doubt that most gay people will welcome this news, and further support research on sexual orientation in humans, as it could (theoretically) put to rest the issue of nature vs. nurture. However, I fear there could be unforeseen consequences to such a discovery. Namely, people trying to determine before their children are born if they are gay or not and taking measures (mostly drastic) based on the outcome. It is a scary thought, but I think it is also premature to try and predict if that will happen or how we should handle it. For now, let's just be glad that every month more and more strong evidence is reported that supports the genetic argument for being gay.

"She's No You!"

2005-06-02T14:26:00.000-04:00

Although I don't have much time to post, I have to at least comment on something that has caused me displeasure. I wouldn't say I'm really up on today's popular music and the title of Jesse McCartney's song proves to me why I should not be -- "She's No You." I mean, that is the most unimaginative title EVER! It really is crap. If this is the state of our popular music (which I think it is), I feel sorry for today's youth. Barf!

No Time....AHHH!

2005-06-02T11:16:00.000-04:00

No blogging today. I am very busy at work and don't have the time to put forth any kind of thoughtful post. Nor do I have the time to even surf the web looking for odd news stories to post with a link. Sad.

Are Teenagers That Bored?

2005-05-31T13:09:00.000-04:00

A depressing account of two (maybe more) teenagers in Florida who beat a homeless man over the course of several days, which eventually lead to his death. The reason for the beating -- "to have something to do." Well, hopefully these kids will find something to do while sitting in prison.

Church As Punishment!

2005-05-31T11:49:00.000-04:00

Here is an article about a Kentucky judge who offers some convicted drug and alcohol offenders a choice in sentence -- attending worship services or jail. The ACLU of Kentucky has decried this a clear violation of the separation of church and state and therefore is unconstitutional.

While I whole-heartedly agree with the idea of alternative sentencing, I have to agree that this judge is not fully thinking through the message that his sentencing choices send. For example, what if an atheist is convicted of the same crime of drug possession as a Christian and both are given the option of attending worship services or jail time. This would be an harsher, and unfair, punishment to the atheist as it directly conflicts with his set of moral and religious beliefs (and yes, I argue that atheism is a religion in the sense that it has its set of moral beliefs, which do not recognize any higher being/power). But he chooses to be an atheist, you say. True he does, but he shouldn't be given a choice between a harsher punishment than the Christian or violate his belief system by attending worship services. When you get right down to it, the judge is rewarding the Christian with a less harsh punishment because the convicted offender is Christian.

But let's assume that the judge's argument that, "I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," is valid and true. Well, what if you are Buddhist instead of an atheist? I'm no expert but I don't think there are many Buddhist temples in Kentucky. So here, we again ask the Buddhist to violate her belief system by attending worship services at another religious house of worship because Kentucky lacks a Buddhist temple to carry out her sentence. Seems a little unfair if you ask me.

Illegal to Speak About Terrorist Desires?

2005-05-31T10:01:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend, it's been reported that two American citizens have been arrested for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida. The article is fairly void of any details about what the men did, but it seems to only mention that the men merely stated their allegiance to al-Qaida and their desire to martyrdom but never actually acted on any of these desires. While I find these men deplorable, I didn't know it was illegal to simply talk about becoming a martyr. If all the FBI has on these men are simple statements about wanting to train only Muslims for urban warfare and looking at a warehouse as a possible training center, then I don't think they have much of a case. There is still free speech in this country and it appears these men never actually made any specific threats. I certainly hope the FBI has more on these men than just some statements about their desires and didn't jump the gun on this one.

Mermaid Girl.

2005-05-30T20:29:00.000-04:00

Who says evolution doesn't exist?

Stem Cell Research.

2005-05-29T23:54:00.000-04:00

It seems that the next "big showdown" in politics might be the issue of stem cell research. No doubt this will be a very heated debate. And there will be many differing opinions on the matter. Andrew Sullivan gives his take on funding for stem cell research. Particularly he states:

In such morally difficult waters, I favor the conservatism of doubt: keep the federal government as far away from such activities as possible, but allow private entities and even state governments, with popular consent, to finance them. I don't see why this position is so unreasonable.

This is an interesting position, one which I think I would agree with ideologically on the principal of less federal government control. But we do not live in a country where the government is less involved with research funding than it seems Andrew Sullivan would like. In fact, a large portion of research money comes from the federal government which is why proponents of federal funding for stem cell research are so eager to get the government to subsidize their programs -- there is A LOT of money involved.

This begs the question: Why can't the federal government take a step back from federal funding research and return that money to private investors so they could then fund different research projects? I see no reason why the government couldn't, except for one: Opponents don't want any funding permitted, public or private, for stem cell research. So, while I think the argument for keeping the federal government out of stem cell research funding is a good one, in terms of not only compromise but also in terms of less federal government control, it seems it is a moot point in the overall argument of stem cell research.

Kitty Cannon

2005-05-27T12:22:00.000-04:00

The Kitty Cannon is a little morbid, but a lot of fun! My personal best (so far): 962 ft.

UPDATE: New personal best: ~~1422 ft~~ 3264 ft.

Homeland Security -- A Non-Equal Opportunity Investigator!

2005-05-27T09:21:00.000-04:00

Let's hope the animal rights activists don't go the way of Timothy McVeigh.

Desecration is Desecration.

2005-05-27T08:49:00.000-04:00

The NYT reports today (along with every other major news organization) that the Koran was indeed "mishandled" at Guantanamo Bay. But (and this seems to be the point most emphasized) there has been no "credible evidence" that the Koran was flushed down the toilet.

This is crap (no pun intended). It appears that the retracted Newsweek story first suggesting that the Koran had been flushed, has actually helped the DoD by making its actions of inappropriate handling seem less disrespectful than say, flushing the Koran down the toilet. And unfortunately the DoD will probably avoid the scathing rebuke that Newsweek suffered because the DoD has actually done worse than this -- two words Abu Ghraib.

And let's just be honest, the mishandling of the Koran is wrong no matter if it is stepped on, burned, or flushed down the toilet. And for the DoD to try and act as if the actions at Guantanamo Bay are not as bad as those first reported in Newsweek is to show a total lack of respect for the Koran, the prisoners under our care, and the American public.

No One Said "Star Wars" Fans Were Bright.

2005-05-26T14:15:00.000-04:00

Now, I don't think it's funny when people get seriously hurt, but what were they thinking? I mean, they might as well have been playing hot potato with a live grenade. DOH!

Looks Like Liberals Don't Hold A Monopoly Over "Activist Judges."

2005-05-26T13:36:00.000-04:00

With all the talk lately over an out of control judiciary, I can't think of single instance where a judge so blatantly trampled on a young boy's parents' first amendment (and many other) rights. Unbelievable.

A Stitch in Haste has more about this case.

Drinking and Driving - Another Reason Not To Do It.

2005-05-26T12:32:00.000-04:00

Why was his friend's head hanging out of the car window? What object is so close to the side of the road so as to be able to decapitate a protruding object from a passing car?

I think his sentence is appropriate, but I think the above questions should be answered.

Fair and Balanced Indeed!

2005-05-26T12:07:00.000-04:00

Apparently Fox News is getting sloppy.

A Bunch of Elitists Controlling Everything!

2005-05-26T11:59:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports:

House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.

Bet you thought I was going to talk about some "liberal judges."

Inconsistent Reasoning on Stem Cell Funding.

2005-05-26T09:12:00.000-04:00

The NYT has an OP/ED piece on Bush's stem cell funding philosophy. The article states:

The president drew his line in the sand back in 2001 when he decreed that federal funds could be used only for research on stem cell lines that already existed. His rationale was that the embryos that yielded those lines had already been destroyed but he did not want to encourage any more destruction, even if the embryos came from fertility clinics' surplus stocks that were ultimately to be discarded.

Here's my problem with Bush's reasoning. He doesn't want to extend funding to new lines because he does not want to encourage the destruction of life. But he's already allocated funds to existing lines, which were created (assuming stem cells are life) through the destruction of life. So he's only willing to fund the destruction of life if it has already happened? By funding the research on the existing lines he is undermining his philosophy of not encouraging the destruction of life because that is exactly what he is doing -- he's encouraged the destruction of life through the funding of existing stem cell line research.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has made an argument (see "Bush's Veto") that Bush's policy on stem cell funding is in fact the best for the country because it is "as neutral as it could be." While I see his point, I still think Bush's reasoning on funding is flawed and may seem to create a neutral state of it, but really only confuses the matter. He also goes on to say that "no American taxpayer should be required to fund from her own dollars what she regards as a moral outrage." Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. What if an American taxpayer is morally outraged by the Iraq war, does he have a right to not pay for it? By that logic, we will have some American taxpayers paying for say, the Iraq war, while others do not pay because they morally object. Yet, all will be able to take advantage of any benefits (or consequences depending on your view) the war may bring. This hardly seems fair to the American taxpayer who has paid for the war.

The Michael Jackson Trial

2005-05-26T08:58:00.000-04:00

So the trial is over and deliberations begin soon. I have followed the trial somewhat and to be honest, in the beginning I thought MJ was a gonner. But as time progressed, I saw the defense cut away at the prosecution's case and I think it's really up in the air at this point. Regardless of whether you think MJ is guilty or not, let's just be honest about one fact:

He is one messed up dude! And the charges brought against him were not unreasonable.

Throughout the trial there were several instances when he (or his spokesman/spokeswoman) would get on TV and claim (paraphrasing of course) "These allegations are baseless and it is an attempt to smear my good name!" Do they seriously believe this? I mean really. Let's assume that nothing did happen sexually between MJ and the young boys. The fact is he still had children (who were not his own) sleep in his bed with him! That's weird! He also seemed to only want to have child friends and he owns a freakn' amusement park just to have kids come over and play. Again, that's weird! Even his defense team admits to the fact that MJ had boys sleep in the same bed with him:

"The defense embraced the central fact rather than run from it, that Michael sleeps alone in bed with boys," said James Hammer, a former San Francisco prosecutor.

Of course this isn't an admission of guilt. But to seem bewildered as to why these charges were brought, you have to be living in your own little reality -- well, we are talking about Michael Jackson.

Blogs Helping to Solve A Murder!

2005-05-25T15:18:00.000-04:00

Simon Sek Man Ng and his sister were tragically murdered in their home. Fortunately, Simon was a blogger and his final blog entry helped nab the killer. May they rest in peace.

Apparently I Get My Wish!

2005-05-25T15:06:00.000-04:00

How funny is this! I just post on the need for Senators to take a Con Law course and voi-la, it's law! Of course, I don't agree with the portion of the law that has the federal government telling schools what to teach, but I do think having one day a year to train federal employees on the Constitution is great!

All Senators Should Be Required To Take A Con Law Course..Or Two!

2005-05-25T13:56:00.000-04:00

CNN has an article about the filibuster deal. I find this direct quote from Senator Frist about the filibuster fight interesting:

[The fight on the filibuster is the] greatest single constitutional issue to confront the Senate in our lifetime.

Oh please! Either Frist has never read the Constitution, or he is trying to pass his interpretation of the Constitution off as the actual requirements laid out in it. There is no requirement or prohibition in the Constitution of a filibuster. Period! The Constitution basically says two things about the Senate on judicial nominees and the use of a filibuster in Senate business:

1) The Senate will "advise and consent" on presidential judicial nominees. Whether this includes the use of a filibuster is a matter of interpretation and Senate rules, NOT a Constitutional matter!

and

2) The Senate makes it's own rules. So, if it wants to have a filibuster, it gets one and vice versa.

Maybe the Democrats are/were being obstructionist with regard to filibustering the judicial nominees and maybe not. I haven't made my mind up on that yet. But I am sure of one thing. If the roles of the Democrats and the Republicans were switched, this fight would be the same. I think some Republicans recognize this and that is why they have not been willing to jump on the "nuclear option" band wagon. It'll be interesting to see if this filibuster deal leads to a stronger bipartisan cooperation or if it is merely delaying the inevitable of a huge judicial nominee showdown.

Political Inconsistencies and Why The Judiciary Aims to Fix Them.

2005-05-25T09:14:00.000-04:00

Slate has an article today about Bush's inconsistent stances on the destruction of life to save other lives (specifically regarding his reasoning for opposing stem cell research while supporting the death penalty). While I think the author could have worked a bit harder to come up with a more substantive piece, the overall theme of the article is something that I've long felt plagues our political system -- political inconsistencies --.

Whether it be from stem cell research to the death penalty to sexual behaviors among consenting adults, politicians are ripe with inconsistent policy decisions about what is "right" and what is "wrong." And while I personally think that this is a major problem in politics today, I don't think many Americans do. This is because these same Americans are the ones who elected these politicians to office. They want their elected officials to make laws that they feel need to be made, i.e. represent them and for the most part I think this is what they should do. But while the politicians should represent their constituents' best interests, I do not think they should always do what their constituents want. They must act in good faith and uphold the Constitution when legislating. Unfortunately, this is not what happens. And this is where I think the courts play a vital role in today's political system.

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past decade, you know there has been an ever growing assault on the judiciary by mainly conservative groups. These groups claim that the judiciary is out of control and overstepping its constitutional boundaries. While I agree with this somewhat, I think what is important is that the judiciary is actually working to create a set of laws that are consistent with not only each other but with the Constitution. Consistency in the form of equality is after all, the underlying principle of the Constitution, is it not? And while there is a clear separation of powers in the Constitution in that the judiciary should not legislate, it does not stop the judiciary from striking down laws that violate the Constitution. This is where the judiciary works to analyze laws to ensure consistency with the Constitution.

The reason, I suspect, many conservatives do not like this is because it usually works against their underlying principle -- "it's ok for me but not for them." For example, the recent decisions on same sex sodomy and the juvenile death penalty to the civil rights decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the judiciary has worked to correct laws that clearly violate the Constitution and effectively work to undermine it by chipping away at its core principle of equality. In this regard I think the courts are doing their job. Because let's face it, sometimes the American people (the majority) are not always right.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318